20th November 2021
Over at his substack the fine political journalist Adam Bienkov has a good and detailed post on how Downing Street lies:
How an official denial from Boris Johnson's Downing Street has now lost all value. https://t.co/MNkztNwm9V
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) November 20, 2021
Of course, some will say, all politicians lie.
But what is distinctive about these lies is how easy they are now to document and expose.
For example, Downing Street had falsely insisted Johnson had complied with the rules on a recent hospital visit.
So yes, all politicians lie – but rarely are the lies in such plain sight.
We can all watch this dishonesty in real time, and there is no other word for what we can all see but lying.
Yet this is just one of (at least) three ways in which the current prime minister and his government are devaluing the language of politics.
*
Take promises.
A recent post on this blog set out three express promises in the 2021 general manifesto that the government has disregarded:
‘We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development, and do more to help countries receiving aid become self-sufficient.’
‘On entering Government in 2010, the Conservatives acted decisively to protect the UK’s pensioners. The ‘triple lock’ we introduced has meant that those who have worked hard and put in for decades can be confident that the state will be there to support them when they need it. We will keep the triple lock…’
‘We promise not to raise the rates of […] National Insurance […].’
We can now add to these reneged commitments, a fourth:
‘We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.’
Of course, all elected governments depart from their manifestos.
But there is something so blatant about how the current government repudiates on its explicit commitments.
These are detailed explicit promises – and the government does not care about disregarding them.
*
And take threats.
How many more times are we going to hear Lord Frost threaten to trigger Article 16?
Even jaded Brexit commentators cannot easily keep up.
And now, with the prospect of Christmas supply lines being affected by any European Union response to the United Kingdom triggering the provision, the United Kingdom this weekend seem to be downplaying the prospect.
But threats, like promises, need to be credible to be effective.
And the United Kingdom government generally, and David Frost in particular, seem to be doing everything they can to discredit and undermine their own position.
*
Words matter.
For although the United Kingdom state has (rightly) a monopoly on the use of coercive power, most politics – and policy and law – in practice rests on words and the meanings that people understand those words to have.
And so if there are fundamental dislocations between words and meanings then this subverts the polity itself.
Our current government states things which can be effortlessly disproved, reneges on detailed manifesto promises, and does not carry out threats.
Political discourse thereby becomes just noise.
Yes – the government can perhaps claim some tactical advantages from this conduct, but this is at the cost of strategic strength.
And as Bienkov avers in his post, one recent cost is that nobody believes Downing Street when it denies a story.
For this Boris Johnson and those around him have only themselves to blame.
They are squandering something of absolute political value.
And they do not seem to care.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
“For although the United Kingdom state has…”
I look forward to when you and others say “the state of the United Kingdom…”
The malaise goes far wider and deeper. It infects a huge number of government communications.
Here is an example, concerning gene editing/gene modification. A wonderful technology, and the Government would have you believe they are different things, because (they say) gene editing only makes modifications to DNA that arise in nature. Here’s an example of this claim:
“Gene editing is different from genetic modification, because it does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species and creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by natural breeding processes – but currently they are regulated in the same way as genetically modified organisms.” See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-to-unlock-power-of-gene-editing-unveiled
However, the Government’s own consultation paper says: ”
“[Gene Editing] can also be used to introduce novel combinations of genetic material into organisms that would not result from traditional breeding methods, for example the introduction of genetic material from a different species”
which is scientifically correct.
20210106 Gene editing consultation document FINAL.pdf (defra.gov.uk)
Why then does DEFRA says this? They have been asked (not by me,) and the answer was:
“Thank you for your e-mail relating to the Public Consultation on the Regulation of Genetic Technologies. The press notice is a simplification in order to communicate a complex scientific concept to the lay person. The type of gene-edited organism that we are consulting on does not contain DNA from different species. The consultation document goes into more detail. Gene-editing can result in a genetically modified organism, i.e., with genetic material from a different species, but we are not consulting on this in the first part of the consultation document. In part 2 of the document we are using this opportunity to engage separately, and start gathering views, on the wider regulatory framework governing genetically modified organisms.”
Of course, the press release is not a “simplification” of the scientific position – it is a distortion if not a downright lie.
The danger of telling everyone that the gene editing technology that it is something it is not, is, of course, that when people find out the truth no one will trust gene editing, whether the modifications are the same as those produced in nature or not.
From a political point of view this shows that the infection of casual distortion and carelessness abut accuracy and truth is catching in the civil service as well as in the Conservative Party. And that – to pick up another theme – is a symptom of systemic corruption in the United Kingdom
Three of those four broken promises aren’t even pledges to do anything, just to maintain status quo – promises not to make things worse.
It is clear (as they say) that the UK is led by an incompetent, idle, mendacious buffoon.
But
The pandemic has changed the world and it is not unreasonable to expect prepandemic promises to be put in abeyance while we try to sort out where we are.
Johnson, ever the booster, would deny this but the calmer voice of Sunak has said as much, eg ‘ when we can afford to put fireign aid back up to 0.7% we will do so.”
Foreign aid includes goods, so we could increase the amount of foreign aid by sending large quantities of Oxford/AstraZenica vaccine to needy countries. This would provide money to boost production in the UK and help everyone in the whole world by making it less likely that a new variant would arise that could cause trouble.
Foreign aid can be things which help foreigners AND us.
This is a great article and it sums up the cheapening and coarsening of language. I’d like to add one additional facet to it – immigration or more accurately asylum seekers:
The people arriving by boats across the Channel are entering the UK without proper papers, but then they apply for asylum which is a lawful activity. While their application is processed, they are not illegal immigrants – but across much of the political discussion they are referred as such. And this often turns into other phrases of which ‘criminal’ and ‘scrounger’ are some of the more polite choices.
The fact that these people are human beings and that the majority will gain recognition as refugees gets lost in that debate. The thrashing around for ‘solutions’ such as push-backs gets more heated and then the reason WHY we have international agreements such as the Law of the Sea, WHY we have the right to request asylum gets utterly lost.
It worries me: The coarsening of the language is often the first step, dehumanising people the next one and then physical attacks on their lives, health and wellbeing are often not far away. There has already been an attack on a legal office – what’s going to happen next?
Addendum: I am not a lawyer and I have no legal training. If I’ve managed to mangle any legal concepts in my comment, then I’d really appreciate any corrections.
Aren’t all of these longstanding problems with government? As long ago as ‘Yes [Prime] Minister’, the maxim ‘Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied’ was so well-entrenched that it made (and still makes, as that programme’s wit has not dulled) for a delightful laugh line from Sir Humphrey rather than a dystopian promise of future government deceit.
No, for the reasons set out in the post. There is something new here.
“Political discourse thereby becomes just noise.”
I would submit that your observation is spot on, by which I mean that degrading language in the political sphere to, say, advertising-speak is the goal. Doing so serves at least two purposes: (1) handicapping any opponent who attempts to stay within the limits of reality, and; (2) as you have detailed in a number of posts, it serves as obfuscation for what those who wield power are actually, in secret, aiming for. After all, for these folks it appears that power and its emoluments, rather than governance is all that there is: nothing in the public domain has value except insofar as it can be converted to cash or power. Oligarchic looting, if you like.
Tories never used to be so dishonest, of course. In the 1979 election campaign Shadow Chancellor Geoffrey Howe rejected Labour claims that he planned to double the rate of VAT. True to his word, in his first Budget he increased it from 8% to 15%.
In the light of this argument why is Mr Speaker still clinging to quaint conventions in the Parliament regarding the words that can be used when addressing PM or one of his Ministers utterances?
Surely lie is a lie whether said in Parliament, by No10 or PM himself in press conference or an interview.
No surprise Johnson lies so often, he has driven himself into a very difficult position. Most of the ‘promises’ of Brexit and immigration and economic renewal simply cannot be realised. Whichever way he turns reality blocks the way and he has to look for weasel words to get off the hook and veer off to another impossible scheme. Eventually he will run out of time and money.
To add to the fun Labour is in much the same boat and does not know if it is a socialist party or a tory-lite party. Either way the same economic realities will hamper any Labour government. Not much pleasure to be had, two useless governmental systems.
Immigration is the word of the moment. Just suppose we seriously want to discourage people from coming. Simple, just build internment camps, separate families, feed and house minimally and show the wretched state on Sky telly. Think barbed wire, armed watchtowers, mud and tents. Not a good look and with international consequences.
Alternatively we could adopt the Huguenot approach. Let them in and get on with it, feed and house themselves. Cue much whining and the construction of hovels. Hovels for native UK persons displaced by a more economically successful immigrant population. Not the nirvana Boris or Starmer would want on their ticket.
The central difficulty is that all the investments and changes to make a warm successful nation should have been made 30 years ago as part of a long and continuous process. Even if Boris and Starmer were anything like capable and honest it would be 30 years before any advantages showed – and possibly the task is impossible anyway. You can see why lying looks the better political option.
“How many more times are we going to hear Lord Frost threaten to trigger Article 16?” reminded me of another similar historic, and somewhat rhetorical, question.
“Quousque tandem, Catilina, abutere patientia nostra?” were Cato’s words in the first of his Orations. But of course Catilina was not discouraged by Cato’s challenging words before the Senate, and carried on with his thoughtless plans.
I have some doubts that Frost will behave any differently.